Party Poker Lobby Riggedness - Page 2

Regulars forced to play regulars more. More money gets raked because people have a smaller edge.

Misrepresent this plan to take more money out of the games as "caring about the ecology of the games"

You know what would improve the ecology of poker games online? Lowering the rake from the obscene amount of money they subtract whilst telling you all that its necessary. This change Party Poker has made is about greed pure and simple. They want more of the money to come back to them. Lowering the rake is also the answer to getting regulars to stop hunting the worst players - aka making it profitable for them to play people who they are better than, but not better than + better than rake as the games currently stand.

(almost) everyone thinks he's better than he really is, but little people are delusional enough to think they can easily overcome 10bb/100 of rake on 6max only regfilled tables @ nl100

this is also the misconception about so called bumhunting: every winning player has some sort of tableselection, whether the standard is to "not play above limit x" or to "avoid playing with players xyz". I agree however, that extreme bumhunting (only play with -20bb/100 or worse players) is a problem.

The solution however is not to do what party did, which is discrimination without informing people

funny thing is they already have anonymous tables if fish feels like he is being hunted by regs he could easily play anon tables without anyone knowing his screen name

Great idea party! Let's encourage regs to multiaccount to keep having new names that can play on fish tables.

lol its as scummy as some sites kicking winning regulars, pp just does it in gentle way

I think any type of rating system is unusuable for poker

poker=/=chess

Both games are skill games but one being pure skill and other one having high level of variance in it and it makes a huge differents

How are they going to measure poker skill?
-by comparing winrates or money won ? errrr sample seize, variance ?
It can't be a fair system and it can be manipulated
-isn't that realy hurting your costumer's privacy by telling other people how much money they have won?

Why not limit table numbers, disallow huds and ptr, make some kind of restrictions or penalties for leaving tables and support table starters
And as someone said ... if you realy want to help.. stop being greedy fucks and lower rake on low stakes so that weaker players could move up faster and listen to your costumers

After doing this without letting anyone know makes them shady as fuck... I mean who knows what they could do next and you not knowing? Where does that stops ?

On March 01 2013 14:44 maryn wrote: lol its as scummy as some sites kicking winning regulars, pp just does it in gentle way

Haha that happened to me twice on 2 different ipoker skins back in 2008. On VCPoker after 1 month where I 'only' won like $12k.

Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then you ARE playing at Party Poker.

Yeah, seems to me they are trying to implement some sort of ELO system based on "skill" of poker.


From a completely GAMEPLAY view of poker, this seems like a good idea, since playing people of the same skill as you encourages you to outhink/outwit.

Like how playing a game of SC1 against a complete noob isn't as satisfying as playing someone equally as good as you.

But since poker is gambles, not sure how viable this is....

It's not. We're all in it to win money and in an ideal world we would only play against fish because that's what I like best at least.

So in an ideal world when it comes to poker we'd all be Galfond playing non-Galfonds.

I can believe some of you are so stupid to think this is good, wow.

I agree with most of the critical comments. I think that PP is mainly looking at it from the point of view of protecting players who are not experienced at playing online (to encourage them to continue playing and depositing money). That would in theory help the ecology of the games. As stated above, by a few ppl, not sure it is realistic, or "viable." But I do think their main concern, with these changes, is to keep new players coming back.

Maybe new/losing players can rent their account to winning players to give them access to super soft tables

Great idea for people like me :D

On March 01 2013 12:26 MadeInPolanD wrote: as i remember Prima, it was a network about the size or smaller than merge is now, if you wouldnt choose all tables waiting lists at particular stakes you didnt play at all may i ask why did you play on Prima? why not any other pokerroom? LET ME GUESS: IT WAS SOFTER :D

It was tax free (unlike Pokerstars was and FTP probably is for Swedish players) and unlike Ongame and old Entraction I felt the software was decent enough that I did not want to stab myself in the eye. Back in the day Prima actually had decent traffic, as in ~10ish tables of 3/6+ running all the time except mornings and late nights.

On March 01 2013 12:48 rogier wrote: 100% not like that for tourneys, where people care about the size of first prize, hence regs affect #participants, which does affect $first prize though thats beyond the scope of party's measure, which only affects no limit cash games. Bwin.party have their own network, and all 3 skins (WPT, party, BWin) are owned by them, so the whole skin argument does not matter. anyways, perhaps you're forgetting that being a reg @ midstakes(and up) implies that you are likely playing poker to make a living. you're not going to make a living by playing people of (on average) equal or better skill, therefore playing with weaker opponents is a necessity. No fish in the game = no game for regs.

Yea but this has little/nothing to do with donkaments, right?

Yes I like playing against fish, I also like playing weaker regs. There are many more weak regs then "pure" fish. Thus I'd prefer if the weak regs is forced to play more with me over being able to join every fish table that happens to be running. Particularly since I'm not as good as checking the lobby 10 times per minute like the more specialised bumhunting guys and thus probably wouldn't have gotten a seat anyway.

On March 01 2013 13:29 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: YOu realise the image of poker itself get destroyed by something like PP did? They are rigging (no idea if its a word) the games... they make a ''legit'' game not legit for their own profits... which mean they can do anything, like make a fish hit so you lose WHat pp did is terrible for the poker players and the poker in general

No, there's nothing in the rules that prevents them from protecting fish and having separate player pools. Skins on some networks who has a lot of sportsbettors or whatnot has done that for ages.

"Rigging" the cards would get then thrown out of every reasonably serious country in the world.

Obviously they should be open about what they're doing and not lie about it, but as a general idea it seems like it'd work just fine as long as they crack down really hard on multi accounting and stuff like that.

It'd be better if the ranking system was open though, like tournament leader boards or whatever.

Add Revolution to the list:

http://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-room-news/revolution-joins-the-player-segregation-party-lobby-catalogue-to-categorize-players-01-03/

On March 01 2013 06:29 DustySwedeDude wrote: Seems like a really good idea. I can see the point of it. Kinda kills bumhunting too, which is great.

On March 01 2013 12:07 DustySwedeDude wrote: I've obviously made most of my profit vs fish

Well, you wouldn't have any of those profits if a true segregation was in place. Winrates for regulars would drop down to a point where very few people beat the rake and handle the insane breakeven stretches. In a midstakes game nowadays where you have only regulars even if you think they have some leaks you're not going to be making much more than 1bb/100 (have fun with million hand downswings). The best player in the world would make a laughable profit. But yeah, his skill would be molded by the toughest games anyone has ever seen. Hurrah for him.

This is ideal for the poker room, but how YOU think this is a really good idea blows my mind. If you accept an idea like this nothing stopping them from further segregation of the player pool (clump up the very best together) to a point where it's not even possible to make ANY money.

dusty the pothead

Reminds me of the Frank Dodd Act. Only profitable for those who sell the services.

noticed this a while ago
first they cut rakeback now they split player pool
ok
bye bye partypok then